Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Validating the Single Item Kawaii Measure

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper reports initial validity evidence for the single-item kawaii measure: a one-question Likert rating of "kawaii" that has been used in human-computer interaction research without prior validation, tested here across voice and visua

desk verdict A useful first step for a niche measure, but the significance tests are compromised by nested data and the convergent criterion is unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19352 v1 pith:VLC6TOWN submitted 2026-05-13 cs.HC cs.CYcs.MMcs.SD

Katie Seaborn , Yijia Wang This is my paper
classification cs.HCcs.CYcs.MMcs.SD
keywords kawaiicutenesssingle-itemmeasurevalidityreliabilityvoiceassistantsvideogamecharactershuman-computerinteraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to establish that a single self-report item asking users to rate how "kawaii" a stimulus is can validly and reliably measure perceptions of cuteness in voice and visual computer stimuli, including voice assistants and video game characters. It pooled nine existing datasets with 967 unique participants and tested convergent validity, construct validity via known groups, cross-context validity, and reliability. The results show strong correlations with candidate items for a future multi-item scale, acceptable internal consistency, moderate known-group differentiation for kawaii stimuli, and moderate cross-cohort consistency. The authors conclude that the one-item measure bears good initial validation, supporting its continued parsimonious use while a multi-item instrument is under development.

What carries the argument

The central object is the single-item kawaii measure itself: one Likert-scale item asking participants to rate how "kawaii" a stimulus is. The argument is carried by a standard psychometric validation framework: convergent validity against candidate items for the in-progress multi-item kawaii instrument (assessed via Kendall's tau-b), reliability via Cronbach's alpha, construct validity through differentiation by known groups (kawaii vs. non-kawaii stimuli), and cross-context validity by modality and cohort.

What would settle it

Correlate the one-item measure with the fully validated multi-item kawaii scale when it becomes available; a weak correlation, or a known-groups test in which non-kawaii stimuli are systematically rated as kawaii on the one-item measure, would refute the claimed validity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the single-item kawaii measure—a single Likert-scale item in which participants rate the "kawaii" attribute of a stimulus—shows initial validity and reliability across voice and visual kawaii perceptions. Convergent validity correlations with items from the in-progress multi-item instrument were strong to very strong (Kendall's tau-b from 0.486 to 0.598, all p<0.001), and Cronbach's alpha values were acceptable. Known-groups tests showed moderate-to-strong positive correlations for kawaii voices, while negative correlations for non-kawaii voices were not significant, which the authors interpret as respondents treating the neutral center as "not applicable" rathe

Load-bearing premise

The single item's convergent validity is judged against candidate items from a multi-item kawaii instrument that has not itself been validated; if those comparison items do not actually measure kawaii, strong correlations with them do not establish the single item's validity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers using the one-item kawaii measure can now cite baseline validity evidence when interpreting kawaii ratings in voice and visual studies.
  • The measure's parsimony makes it practical for online and multi-measure studies, reducing respondent and analyst burden while remaining defensible.
  • The results support pooling or meta-analysing prior studies that used the single-item kawaii measure, at least within Japanese crowdsourced samples and the stimulus types tested.
  • The weak voice-body correlation suggests that while the measure captures a shared kawaii percept, modality-specific differences should be reported and examined rather than assumed equivalent.
  • Validation is explicitly limited to the populations and stimuli studied; re-validation with non-Japanese samples and other agent form factors is a stated next step.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the forthcoming multi-item kawaii instrument fails to correlate strongly with the single item once fully validated, the convergent-validity evidence presented here would need to be reinterpreted; the current result is contingent on the in-progress instrument's own validity.
  • The pattern of non-significant negative correlations for non-kawaii stimuli suggests respondents may use the lower end of the scale as "not applicable" rather than "opposite of kawaii," implying the item measures presence of kawaii but not its absence—a distinction worth testing directly.
  • A within-subject design comparing voice and body ratings of the same characters could determine whether the weak cross-modal correlation reflects genuine modality differences in kawaii perception or noise from between-subjects comparisons.
  • Because kawaii is culturally grounded, applying the same validation logic to non-Japanese cohorts would be a direct test of whether the single item travels across cultures or remains Japan-specific.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a validation study of a single-item self-report measure of kawaii (cuteness) using nine existing datasets with 967 unique participants rating video game character voices, visual appearances, and voice assistant voices. The authors assess convergent validity by correlating the single item with items from an in-progress multi-item instrument, construct validity by comparing kawaii vs. non-kawaii stimuli, cross-context validity across modality and cohort, and reliability via Cronbach's alpha. They report mostly strong, statistically significant tau-b correlations and conclude that the single item shows 'good initial validation' and supports continued use.

Significance. If substantiated, the paper would provide useful baseline evidence for a widely used but previously unvalidated single-item kawaii measure in HCI, supporting parsimonious self-report measurement in voice assistant and game character research. The authors should be credited for assembling and openly sharing multiple datasets, for using a rank-based correlation appropriate for Likert-type data, and for explicitly acknowledging some limitations. However, the central quantitative evidence is currently compromised by non-independence of ratings within participants, and the convergent-validity criterion is an unvalidated in-progress instrument from the same group. These issues are load-bearing for the abstract's claim of 'initial evidence of validity' and for the Discussion's stronger claim of 'good initial validation.'

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Tables 1–2; §5] All convergent-validity and cross-context analyses treat individual ratings as independent observations. For example, D2 has 157 participants but N=2826 ratings, and D4 has 51 participants but N=918 ratings. Ratings from the same rater are correlated, so the effective sample size is far smaller than reported. This invalidates the p-values and understates uncertainty for every tau-b in Tables 2 and 3. The paper acknowledges this in Section 5 but does not correct it. Reanalysis at the participant level (e.g., aggregated means, mixed-effects models, or cluster-robust inference) is required before any validity conclusion can be drawn.
  2. [§3.2, §4.1, Table 2] Convergent validity is assessed against items 'considered for the in-progress multi-item instrument' that is not yet validated, and the six dimensions (humanlikeness, artificiality, happiness, trustworthiness, favourableness, excitement) originate in the authors' own prior kawaii vocalics model. Correlating the single item with an unvalidated criterion does not establish construct validity; it only shows internal consistency among items from the same research program. The abstract's claim of validity is therefore not supported by this analysis. At minimum, the conclusion must be tempered to note that the criterion itself awaits validation, or the analysis should be supplemented with an established measure such as the CR-15.
  3. [§3.2, §4.1, Table 2] Cronbach's alpha is used as evidence of reliability for the single-item measure, but alpha is computed on the multi-item set, not on the single item; a single item cannot have an internal-consistency coefficient. Moreover, D4 (alpha=0.653) and D5 (alpha=0.658) fall below the paper's own acceptable threshold of .70, yet the text states 'Reliability via Cronbach's alpha was acceptable.' This is internally inconsistent and should be corrected. Reliability of the single item, if assessed at all, would require test-retest or other methods explicitly stated in Section 5 as future work.
  4. [§4.2, Table 3] Known-groups validity is only partially supported. The correlations with kawaii voices are significant, but all correlations with non-kawaii voices are non-significant, some in the expected negative direction but others near zero. The authors' interpretation that the neutral response means 'not applicable' is a post-hoc assumption with no evidence offered for how participants actually used the scale. While the authors note the need for 'uncute' stimuli in future work, the current results do not demonstrate discriminant validity for non-kawaii stimuli, and the Discussion's claim of 'good initial validation' overstates this evidence.
  5. [§4.3] The cross-context modality comparison (D10 vs. D4, N=918) again uses nested ratings from a small number of participants without accounting for non-independence. The cohort comparison (D2 vs. D3) reports tau-b=0.200, p<0.001, but the methods do not specify the unit of analysis or how a correlation between two independent samples was computed. It is unclear whether this is a correlation between aggregate ratings per stimulus, per participant, or some other pair. The reader cannot evaluate this result without a precise description of the analytic procedure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / throughout] Typographical spacing issues: 'N= 967unique' and similar missing spaces should be fixed.
  2. [§3.1, Table 1] D9 and D10 are attributed to Mandai et al. but the reference list entry [17] is for 'Super Kawaii Vocalics'; please clarify which data are from which source and whether all datasets are publicly available per the data link.
  3. [§4.2, Table 3] Stimulus names such as 'Kawaii Kenshin' and 'Kenshin' are ambiguous. Ensure the table clearly distinguishes the stimulus condition and the comparison groups.
  4. [§3.2] The interpretation thresholds for tau-b are cited from Schober et al. via Wicklin, but the direct citation is to Schober et al.; please verify the source of the specific thresholds.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Known-groups 'validation' selects groups using the single-item measure being validated; convergent-validity criterion is an unvalidated, self-generated instrument.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2 (Data Analysis) and Section 4.2 (Construct Validity), Table 3]
    "For differentiation by known groups, we used Kendall’s 𝜏𝑏, comparing kawaii vs. non-kawaii stimuli (D1) ... We used the highest and lowest kawaii and non-kawaii voices from D1."

    The kawaii vs. non-kawaii groups are not established by an external criterion; they are selected from the top and bottom of the single-item kawaii ratings themselves. Any tau-b computed between the single-item measure and group membership defined by that same measure is rank-correlated by selection rule, so the significant Table 3 correlations restate the sample-splitting procedure rather than provide independent construct validity.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 2 (Theoretical Background), Section 3.2 (Data Analysis), Section 5 (Discussion)]
    "From this work and the associated data sets, we identified six cross-modal factors as dimensions of kawaii—humanlikeness, lack of artificiality/machinelikeness, happiness, trustworthiness, favourableness, and excitement. ... Convergent validity was assessed by comparing the single item measure to items considered for the in-progress multi-item instrument (D2–5, D7, D8)."

    The convergent-validity criterion is an in-progress multi-item instrument by the same research group; its six dimensions are traced to the authors' own prior kawaii vocalics work and data sets. The paper defers concurrent validity against the upcoming multi-item instrument to future work, acknowledging no externally validated criterion is used. Thus the strong tau-b values are correlations with a self-generated, not-yet-validated target, making part of the central validity claim dependent on the same research program's self-citations.

full rationale

The strongest circularity is the known-groups test: the paper claims construct validity by comparing kawaii vs. non-kawaii voices, but those groups are the highest/lowest scorers on the single-item measure under validation, so the test is definitionally guaranteed. The convergent-validity analysis is weakened by using an unvalidated, in-progress multi-item instrument whose dimensions originate in the same authors' prior studies and data sets; this is a self-citation loop rather than an independent anchor. The cross-context comparisons and reliability estimates are not circular, and the repeated-measures/non-independence issue is a statistical validity concern, not a derivation-circularity issue. Because one of the three validity pillars reduces by construction and another relies on self-generated criteria, a partial circularity score of 6 is warranted; the paper still contains independent-looking cross-context evidence and acknowledges some limitations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the analysis uses fixed thresholds for alpha (.70-.95) and tau-b interpretation drawn from the literature (though the tau-b thresholds are misquoted). The key assumptions are the theoretical framing of kawaii, the treatment of an in-progress multi-item scale as a criterion, and an ad-hoc interpretation of the neutral response category that rescues null results.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math Kendall's tau-b and Cronbach's alpha are appropriate statistics for Likert-scale data
    Section 3.2 adopts these statistics, citing [8] and [35]; no fitted values are involved.
  • domain assumption Kawaii is a percept grounded in baby schema, operationalized by six cross-modal factors: humanlikeness, lack of artificiality, happiness, trustworthiness, favourableness, and excitement
    Section 2 and Section 3.2; these factors come from the authors' own prior work [17,29,30] and define the items used for convergent validity.
  • ad hoc to paper The neutral response option means 'not applicable' rather than 'uncute'
    Section 4.2 introduces this interpretation to explain non-significant negative correlations with non-kawaii voices; no data or prior literature is cited to support it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Validating the Single Item Kawaii Measure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VLC6TOWN

@misc{pith2026260719352,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Validating the Single Item Kawaii Measure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VLC6TOWN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19352}
}
read the original abstract

Kawaii is the Japanese instantiation of cuteness. As a multimodal percept theoretically derived from the notion of baby schema, kawaii can be a property of voice and sound, visual appearance and form factor, and movement and expression. However, measuring user perceptions of kawaii remains an open question. In the absence of a validated instrument, a one-item self-report measure has been used extensively, but has not been validated. Here, we report on three types of validity -- convergent, known groups, and cross-context -- and reliability for the single item measure across nine data sets featuring responses to video game character voices and visual appearances and computer-generated voice assistant voices from N=967 unique participants. Our results demonstrate initial evidence of the validity of the one-item measure for voice and visual kawaii perceptions. Further rigour can be pursued with novel stimuli, test-retest validation, and concurrent validity against the upcoming multi-item measure of kawaii.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Allen, Dragos Iliescu, and Samuel Greiff

    Mark S. Allen, Dragos Iliescu, and Samuel Greiff. 2022. Single Item Measures in Psychological Science: A Call to Action.European Journal of Psychological Assessment38, 1 (Jan. 2022), 1–5. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000699

    doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000699 2022

  2. [2]

    Yuko Asano-Cavanagh. 2014. Linguistic manifestation of gender reinforcement through the use of the Japanese term kawaii.Gender and Language8, 3 (Oct. 2014), 341–359. doi:10.1558/genl.v8i3.341

    work page doi:10.1558/genl.v8i3.341 2014

  3. [3]

    Rossiter

    Lars Bergkvist and John R. Rossiter. 2007. The Predictive Validity of Multiple- Item versus Single-Item Measures of the Same Constructs.Journal of Marketing Research44, 2 (May 2007), 175–184. doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175

    work page doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175 2007

  4. [4]

    Oana-Maria Bîrlea. 2023. Soft power: ‘Cute culture’, a persuasive strategy in Japanese advertising.Trames27, 3 (2023), 311–324

    2023

  5. [5]

    Boateng, Torsten B

    Godfred O. Boateng, Torsten B. Neilands, Edward A. Frongillo, Hugo R. Melgar- Quiñonez, and Sera L. Young. 2018. Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer.Frontiers in Public Health6 (June 2018). doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    She thinks you’rekawaii

    Matthew Burdelski and Koji Mitsuhashi. 2010. “She thinks you’rekawaii”: So- cializing affect, gender, and relationships in a Japanese preschool.Language in Society39, 1 (Jan. 2010), 65–93. doi:10.1017/s0047404509990650

    work page doi:10.1017/s0047404509990650 2010

  7. [7]

    Gennaro Costagliola, Mattia De Rosa, Vittorio Fuccella, and Parinaz Tabari

  8. [8]

    Cronbach

    Lee J. Cronbach. 1951. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika16, 3 (Sept. 1951), 297–334. doi:10.1007/bf02310555

    doi:10.1007/bf02310555 1951

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Frongillo, Tom Baranowski, Amy F

    Edward A. Frongillo, Tom Baranowski, Amy F. Subar, Janet A. Tooze, and Sharon I. Kirkpatrick. 2019. Establishing Validity and Cross-Context Equivalence of Mea- sures and Indicators.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics119, 11 (Nov. 2019), 1817–1830. doi:10.1016/j.j...

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Christoph Fuchs and Adamantios Diamantopoulos. 2009. Using single-item measures for construct measurement in management research: Conceptual issues and application guidelines.Die Betriebswirtschaft69, 2 (2009), 195

    2009

  3. [11]

    Glocker, Daniel D

    Melanie L. Glocker, Daniel D. Langleben, Kosha Ruparel, James W. Loughead, Ruben C. Gur, and Norbert Sachser. 2009. Baby Schema in Infant Faces Induces Cuteness Perception and Motivation for Caretaking in Adults.Ethology115, 3 (Jan. 2009), 257–263. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01603.x

    2009

  4. [12]

    2015.Flexible Femininities? Queering Kawaii in Japanese Girls’ Culture

    Makiko Iseri. 2015.Flexible Femininities? Queering Kawaii in Japanese Girls’ Culture. Palgrave Macmillan UK, UK, 140–163. doi:10.1057/9781137492852_7

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Judit Kroo and Yoshiko Matsumoto. 2018. The case of Japanese otona ‘adult’: Mediatized gender as a marketing device.Discourse & Communication12, 4 (March 2018), 401–423. doi:10.1177/1750481318757776

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Cherie Lacey and Catherine Caudwell. 2019. Cuteness as a ‘Dark Pattern’ in Home Robots. In2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 374–381. doi:10.1109/hri.2019. 8673274

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Shiri Lieber-Milo. 2021. Cute at an older age: A case study of Otona-Kawaii. Mutual Images Journal10 (2021), 93–108

    2021

  8. [16]

    Konrad Lorenz. 1943. Die angeborenen Formen möglicher Erfahrung.Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie5, 2 (April 1943), 235–409. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1943. tb00655.x

    1943

  9. [17]

    Yuto Mandai, Katie Seaborn, Tomoyasu Nakano, Xin Sun, Yijia Wang, and Jun Kato. 2025. Super Kawaii Vocalics: Amplifying the "Cute" Factor in Computer Voice. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Validating the Single Item Kawaii Measure Systems...

    2025

  10. [18]

    Conor McGinn and Ilaria Torre. 2019. Can you Tell the Robot by the Voice? An Exploratory Study on the Role of Voice in the Perception of Robots. In2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 211–221. doi:10.1109/hri.20...

    2019

  11. [19]

    Charles I. Mosier. 1947. A Critical Examination of the Concepts of Face Validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement7, 2 (July 1947), 191–205. doi:10. 1177/001316444700700201

    1947

  12. [20]

    Hiroshi Nittono. 2016. The two-layer model of ‘kawaii’: A behavioural science framework for understanding kawaii and cuteness.East Asian Journal of Popular Culture2, 1 (April 2016), 79–95. doi:10.1386/eapc.2.1.79_1 Publisher: Intellect

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Hiroshi Nittono, Michiko Fukushima, Akihiro Yano, and Hiroki Moriya. 2012. The power of kawaii: Viewing cute images promotes a careful behavior and narrows attentional focus.PLOS ONE7, 9 (Sept. 2012), e46362. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0046362 Publisher: Public Library of Science

    2012

  14. [22]

    Hiroshi Nittono and Namiha Ihara. 2017. Psychophysiological responses to kawaii pictures with or without baby schema.SAGE Open7, 2 (April 2017), 2158244017709321. doi:10.1177/2158244017709321 Publisher: SAGE Publications

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    2023.“Kawaii” from an Engineering Perspective

    Michiko Ohkura. 2023.“Kawaii” from an Engineering Perspective. Springer Nature Switzerland, Switzerland, 559–568. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-34732-0_43

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Satoshi Ota. 2022. Changes in the image of middle-aged women: A study of otona-joshi (‘adult girls’) in Japanese print media.East Asian Journal of Popular Culture8, 2 (Sept. 2022), 277–290. doi:10.1386/eapc_00079_1

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Schwarte

    Patrick Schober, Christa Boer, and Lothar A. Schwarte. 2018. Correlation Coeffi- cients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation.Anesthesia & Analgesia126, 5 (May 2018), 1763–1768. doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000002864

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Katie Seaborn, Maximilian Altmeyer, Ge “Rikaku” Li, Bonhee Ku, Sota Kobuki, and Jacqueline Urakami. 2025. The Voice Experience Inventory (VOXI): Validat- ing a consensus-driven instrument for measuring user impressions of computer voice.International Journal of Human-Computer ...

    2025

  19. [27]

    Katie Seaborn, Norihisa Paul Miyake, Peter Pennefather, and Mihoko Otake- Matsuura. 2021. Voice in human-agent interaction: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)54, 4 (May 2021), 1–43. doi:10.1145/3386867

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Katie Seaborn and Satoshi Nakamura. 2025. Quality and representativeness of research online with Yahoo! Crowdsourcing.Frontiers in Psychology16 (Aug. 2025). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1588579 Publisher: Frontiers

    2025

  21. [29]

    Katie Seaborn, Somang Nam, Julia Keckeis, and Tatsuya Itagaki. 2023. Can voice assistants sound cute? Towards a model of kawaii vocalics. InExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Katie Seaborn, Katja Rogers, Somang Nam, and Miu Kojima. 2023. Kawaii game vocalics: A preliminary model. InCompanion Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY Companion ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 202...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Katie Seaborn and Jacqueline Urakami. 2021. Measuring voice UX quantitatively: A rapid review. InExtended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama, Japan, No. 416. doi:10.1145/ 3411763.3451712

    2021

  24. [32]

    Masahiro Shiomi, Rina Hayashi, and Hiroshi Nittono. 2023. Is two cuter than one? number and relationship effects on the feeling of kawaii toward social robots.PLOS ONE18, 10 (Oct. 2023), e0290433. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290433

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Reina Takamatsu. 2018. Measuring Affective Responses to Cuteness and Japanese kawaii as a Multidimensional Construct.Current Psychology39, 4 (April 2018), 1362–1374. doi:10.1007/s12144-018-9836-4

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Mohsen Tavakol and Reg Dennick. 2011. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education2 (June 2011), 53–55. doi:10.5116/ijme. 4dfb.8dfd

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    Edwin van den Heuvel and Zhuozhao Zhan. 2022. Myths About Linear and Mono- tonic Associations: Pearson’s r, Spearman’s 𝜌, and Kendall’s 𝜏.The American Statistician76, 1 (Jan. 2022), 44–52. doi:10.1080/00031305.2021.2004922

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    van Mechelen and G

    W. van Mechelen and G. Mellenbergh. 1997. Problems and Solutions in Longitu- dinal Research: From Theory to Practice.International Journal of Sports Medicine 18, S 3 (July 1997), S238–S245. doi:10.1055/s-2007-972721

    1997 doi

  29. [37]

    Yijia Wang and Katie Seaborn. 2024. Kawaii Computing: Scoping Out the Japan- ese Notion of Cute in User Experiences with Interactive Systems. InExtended Abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’24). Association for Computing Machinery...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Wanous, Arnon E

    John P. Wanous, Arnon E. Reichers, and Michael J. Hudy. 1997. Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures?Journal of Applied Psychology 82, 2 (April 1997), 247–252. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247

    1997 doi

  31. [39]

    Naoki Yoshikawa, Hiroshi Nittono, and Hiroaki Masaki. 2020. Effects of Viewing Cute Pictures on Quiet Eye Duration and Fine Motor Task Performance.Fron- tiers in Psychology11 (2020). https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/ articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01565

    2020

  32. [40]

    Gloria Xiaodan Zhang, Yijia Wang, Taro Leo Nakajima, and Katie Seaborn. 2025. First Contact with Dark Patterns and Deceptive Designs in Chinese and Japanese Free-to-Play Mobile Games.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 6 (Oct. 2025), GAMES025:730–GAMES025:755. doi:10.1145/3748620

    2025 doi

  33. [2023]

    doi:10.1093/iwc/iwad031

    The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Human–Computer Interaction Empirical Research.Interacting with Computers35, 5 (April 2023), 578–589. doi:10.1093/iwc/iwad031

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.